You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To check for broken &&-chains, we run "fail_117 && $1" as a test
snippet, and check the exit code. We use test_eval_ to do so, because
that's the way we run the actual test.
But we don't need any of its niceties, like "set -x" tracing. In fact,
they hinder us, because we have to explicitly disable them. So let's
skip that and use "eval" more directly, which is simpler. I had hoped it
would also be faster, but it doesn't seem to produce a measurable
improvement (probably because it's just running internal shell commands,
with no subshells or forks).
Note that there is one gotcha: even though we don't intend to run any of
the commands if the &&-chain is intact, an error like this:
test_expect_success 'broken' '
# this next line breaks the &&-chain
true
# and then this one is executed even by the linter
return 1
'
means we'll "return 1" from the eval, and thus from test_run_(). We
actually do notice this in test_expect_success, but only by saying "hey,
this test didn't say it was OK, so it must have failed", which is not
right (it should say "broken &&-chain").
We can handle this by calling test_eval_inner_() instead, which is our
trick for wrapping "return" in a test snippet. But to do that, we have
to push the trace code out of that inner function and into test_eval_().
This is arguably where it belonged in the first place, but it never
mattered because the "inner_" function had only one caller.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
0 commit comments